Key

Clever.

Welcome. While I am American, born and bred, at times I have wished to be another English speaking nationality. (British, Australian, Irish...you get the picture.) Just so I'd be able to call another brother "mate" without being judged as gay by some bigoted homophobic American Republican. Sorry, had to vent.

Here is where I actually have a problem with this: it doesn't fit the offense. Let's place this under a different perspective. Your child is called names by another child at school, so your solution is to unleash an attack dog on all the kids at school to prevent it from ever happening again. The dog mauls many children, even those who did not commit any offense, but the dog doesn't know, nor really cares as it is doing its master's bidding. Plus, we already have a tale of God personally smiting those who opposed Moses. As He can and has done this, why the need for other critters to punish for Him, and indiscriminately?

Hate to have to interject here, Dan, but in my opinion, the use of a rod and the use of a bear are not the same. Note the quote says, "...is careful to discipline them." This presumes a method of control of force so as to not overdo measure of punishment to befitting offense. Bears do not rationalize punishment, do they? They wouldn't even understand the offense, I'm sure. God moves them to attack, they attack, but have no idea as to why, nor how to modify their destructive behavior.

An argument on this had been shared on a thread somewhere on this forum before that the Christian God can not be held accountable according to the same standards as humans, as He is not human. Whereas, a counter argument could be said that standards for humans differ from animals, therefore there can be no animal abuse as it is basically the same as the statement above. It is an endless debate.

I quite like what she had to say. It should aptly apply to pretty much everything, not just religion, like she briefly mentions on conservation. Well articulated.

Unfortunate for us. Wish you well.

As I am well familiar by all this time here.

Interesting. Plausible, as well.

Have to admit, this kinda confused me, too. The given suggestions could still work with an eleven year old. If for a vet, it is up to what they have patience for. Farms often encourage youngsters to learning care for animals to broaden enthusiasm to become future farmers. Therapy animal programs can cater in some form to ability and needs of a volunteer, as well. The in-depth line seems to change the needs from her to you. Are you implying you wish to share the experience with her, or that you'd like some side benefit, or what?

Yeah, occasionally my brain does work.

Again, not knowing what her exact limits might be, helping to train or foster therapy animals might also be something to look into, though personally caring for another living thing in the household does come with added expenses. But, handlers do seem to achieve a sense of worth and satisfaction through it all.

In all honesty, if He had commanded the Apostles to take His message to all nations, then indeed He wanted to be inclusive of the gentiles. But through Judaism or simply belief of His message, I don't know.

I suspect much the same with Jesus, no?

Generally accepted as much by the modern populace without direct knowledge on the subject.

Not upset, either. Curious, though, how does your statement prove Einstein was aware of the article if he had lived long enough. Are you saying the article didn't exist, after all? If that were the case, then that would make you the liar you proclaimed you weren't. Could you prove he was aware, if the article exists? Evidence for your argument is required in this instance because it isn't a question of faith per this tandem you had presented. See the point, yet?

I wonder...might it be that Einstein, himself, had never seen said article, nor was ever asked about the quote? One can not affirm what one does not know exists.

No. He stated the quotation is a lie, not that you are a liar, unless it's quoting you, which it wasn't.

This may well be true, as "history" was orally passed down for many centuries, or, for some people's beliefs, after many generations before finally being written down. Men have always felt the need to explain the unknown. Thus, stories were made to explain things that were out of reach for them to understand, like the stars, the moon, or even how and where different lifeforms came about. Not saying there couldn't be a God of all creation. Just that these passages may just be simplified explanations of something no one could truly grasp at the time. Thus, may not be literal, as some folks do take.

Just remember, even Thomas needed further proof when Christ first rose from the dead. So why, after being away for thousands of years, would He not expect many with the same inquisitive mind as Thomas?

Seems to me, this is what they have been telling you many times already.

You missed the point. I'm bowing out here. Not enough energy right now. (Working long hours currently.)

Playing Devil's advocate here again, Dan, just to offer another perspective of what you're saying. A bit lengthy, so bear with me, please. 1) Prior to Disney buying the Star Wars franchise and rights, every Star Wars book, comic, or even movie had to be inline with the others so as not to contradict timelines and events for various recurring characters. This process is called "canon". After the change in ownership, Disney was no longer following previous established canon (except loosely the films of the original trilogy and prequels). With this in mind, what if the regions from which the Bible books came from, also established a sort of canon in order for them to be more believable or relatable and easier for memory? And forgers were rampant as well, so they would have followed many similarities and styles of the originals. Then something happened, a council was convened to establish a new canon from the books, to remove many that were popular in different areas and sects. Some books no longer were seen as part of the canon, while others remained. In effect, a new ownership was established. Of course, the older books may not contradict, in many faithful minds, but that may be greatly in part of how they were intently written, as part of a mental canon. 2) Scientologist absolutely believe their books on Dianetics to be thoroughly true, and even cite various entries from it as proof, and those entries do not contradict each other, whatsoever. Would you then think to yourself, "well, they are quoting from a book they believe in, with only their faith as real evidence, so they must be the true religion?"

For one, there is a report post link in the box of postings. Two, there is the ability to DM a person of your choosing to communicate with. 3, the negative views you talk about have gone both ways, as I have seen. As this is an interfaith church, meaning open to all faiths, one may expect to receive differing points of to any posts that may be put up here, agreeable or not. That's part of dialogue and learning with each other. If you wish to place a sermon to which no one may comment one way or the other, the Open Pulpit thread is the one place on this forum to do so. As you said, this website is about diversity. Nothing demonstrates that better than different views. The terms of use are just fine, as long as they are being observed by the participants of the forum. Just saying. Respectfully.